The ISD is a newer ship, more guns 60 turbos vs 8 turbos......so yes the ISD would win unless we go deeply tactical.

And? YES, we clearly go for tactics. Everyone uses all their resources would otherwise be nonsense

Quote:

The ISD was never a dedicated carrier, so it will never be stated as one, compared to the venator.

I never said so and was or is not the subject of my argumentation

Quote:

But that being said, a 400 starfighter carrying ISD simply is not conceptualized in SW, you my have to make your own.

I can not understand why you do not read what I wrote. I never wanted to turn the ISD into a carrier

Quote:

As to the rules, NO there is no carrier ISD with any compliments reaching those numbers.

wrong theme

Quote:

Ps! The ISD has 8 times the gunnery power of the venator...so it wins hands down

Unfortunately, the ISD was shot to dust by 400 Starfighter before he could use his superior armament

I'll try again to explain what it's all about

I'm NOT about:

To turn ISD into a carrier

All I said was that the ISD is used as the basis for all other ships. I think you can agree on that?

An ISD should be superior to EVERY other ship in 1: 1. This includes all resources of the respective ship.

I just explained why the RAW is not like that and that's why my arguments have turned. These arguments and topics were ignored and it was dropped on the one where I said explicitly that it is NOT my topic !!!

My examples regarding background are not covered by the rules, which is my main topic, was not answered at all, which I think is a great pity

I am pretty sure the ISD is the "basis" for most if not all imperial capital ships.

However as to being superior, they are not superior to everything out there, but they are far superior to most things.

A single ISD is by the imperial doctrine actually enough to capture a planet, with a destroyer line alone enough to take and control a full system.
This despite the system forces are larger than "just" line, however they are usually smaller ships and supported or reinforced with an ISD line.

But back to the being superior.

ISD is by design the single most powerful "stock" ship of the era.
A venator, if they still exist and if they can have a full compliment, is a threat, however with outdated systems, guns and shields, and above all outdated fighters, the venator still is not an alternative.

So are there individual ships of the era that is the same size but stronger than the ISD, belonging to other factions...........yes a handful, nothing more.

So the ISD is the strongest warship.
it is all about the era(s) the ships belong to.

I dare say a modern 2000s patrol cutter beats any ww2 battleship, even several of then at once.
And that is a good way of looking at it , ISD is modern, venator is ww2, ISD is the norm and considered for the age the "strongest" stock warships

I see several false assumptions here about the efficacy of starfighters against capital ships. While a Venator loaded with, say, TIE Avengers or Defenders would certainly present a formidable threat, there are a variety of factors that would make it highly unlikely. A short list:

1). Assuming that, just because it can carry a large number of fighters automatically means the ship is carrying a full load. IRL, carriers at war were often forced to make do with understrength airgroups due to shortages in their supply and training pipelines. In the SW Sourcebook, it is specifically mentioned that many Victory I-Class SD's have mothballed their hangar bays, as there are not sufficient TIEs in service to fully equip them all. This will be especially problematic for the Alliance, which faces serious supply shortages just maintaining the fighter strength that it already has scattered around the galaxy.

2). Assuming that all starfighters are created equal. Even if you can fully load a Venator with fighters, it is unlikely they will all be front-line, ordnance carrying fighters of the type needed to do actual damage to a ship like an ISD.

3). Assuming that you have flight crews and unit commanders of sufficient skill and experience to be able to coordinate in such numbers. I have no idea what Difficulty you set for that Command roll, but if they successfully managed a 400-strong coordinated strike, I have no doubt at all that it was set way too low.

4). Abuse of the coordination bonus. If you used the 2R&E coordination bonus method, you're looking at a combined bonus of +133D, which means these 400 starfighters effectively outgun the Death Star Superlaser by several orders of magnitude. The 2R&E coordination system was never intended to be used with such high numbers in mind.

5). Assuming that there will not be additional factors within the setting that prevent both sides from making full use of the Venator's capabilities, willingly or otherwise. The EU has made it quite clear that the Empire has moved away from carrier-focused combat in favor of capital ships. One reason in particular is the emphasis on centralized authority and surveillance (much easier to keep control of - and keep an eye on - the 40,000 plus crew of an ISD than a single pilot in a cockpit). Starfighter piloting requires a degree of independence that a totalitarian regime would view askance.

denderan, I don't know what particular set of rules you are using, but more than once on this forum, I have seen you make reference to a rule that I have never heard of, and cannot locate in any source in my possession. Are you, perchance, using some form of house rule that you haven't mentioned?_________________"No set of rules can cover every situation. It's expected that you will make up new rules to suit the needs of your game." - The Star Wars Roleplaying Game, 2R&E, pg. 69, WEG, 1996.

see several false assumptions here about the efficacy of starfighters against capital ships. While a Venator loaded with, say, TIE Avengers or Defenders would certainly present a formidable threat, there are a variety of factors that would make it highly unlikely. A short list:

If we assume that a Venator is properly run militarily and has 400 Starfighters on board, why should not 100 of the 400 be bombers?

Quote:

1). Assuming that, just because it can carry a large number of fighters automatically means the ship is carrying a full load. IRL, carriers at war were often forced to make do with understrength airgroups due to shortages in their supply and training pipelines. In the SW Sourcebook, it is specifically mentioned that many Victory I-Class SD's have mothballed their hangar bays, as there are not sufficient TIEs in service to fully equip them all. This will be especially problematic for the Alliance, which faces serious supply shortages just maintaining the fighter strength that it already has scattered around the galaxy.

Now, in my opinion, you are reaching deep into the argumentative bag of tricks.

I'm not saying anything but an ISD that is 100% operational against a Venator, also at 100% capacity, has no chance even though, according to the background, it should not

Quote:

2). Assuming that all starfighters are created equal. Even if you can fully load a Venator with fighters, it is unlikely they will all be front-line, ordnance carrying fighters of the type needed to do actual damage to a ship like an ISD.

You see, that's exactly what I'm about. If the Venator is better why not give it the better Starfighter?

Even with 2nd Class Starfighters, a Venator wins against pretty much everything except Death Star and SSD

Quote:

3). Assuming that you have flight crews and unit commanders of sufficient skill and experience to be able to coordinate in such numbers. I have no idea what Difficulty you set for that Command roll, but if they successfully managed a 400-strong coordinated strike, I have no doubt at all that it was set way too low.

I do not have to. Since the ISD has no more Starfighter Defense, these were erased by the starfighters of the Venator.

4 squadrons are enough to get the job done. Each Squadron comes from one side -> 1D Shields on 3 Fire Arcs and on the last page 0D Shields.

If they are "only" equipped with Proton Torpedoes, the base damage is 9D. If they make a co-ordinated attack at 8, the damage is 11D + 2.

3 times 11D + 2 versus 14D and once 11D + 2 versus 13D

Statistically, they do at least one damage that goes beyond the resistance roll.

And that goes every round like that

Quote:

4). Abuse of the coordination bonus. If you used the 2R&E coordination bonus method, you're looking at a combined bonus of +133D, which means these 400 starfighters effectively outgun the Death Star Superlaser by several orders of magnitude. The 2R&E coordination system was never intended to be used with such high numbers in mind.

See point 3

Quote:

5). Assuming that there will not be additional factors within the setting that prevent both sides from making full use of the Venator's capabilities, willingly or otherwise. The EU has made it quite clear that the Empire has moved away from carrier-focused combat in favor of capital ships. One reason in particular is the emphasis on centralized authority and surveillance (much easier to keep control of - and keep an eye on - the 40,000 plus crew of an ISD than a single pilot in a cockpit). Starfighter piloting requires a degree of independence that a totalitarian regime would view askance.

Here, I do not contradict, as I said before, the background is not covered by the rules.

Quote:

denderan, I don't know what particular set of rules you are using, but more than once on this forum, I have seen you make reference to a rule that I have never heard of, and cannot locate in any source in my possession. Are you, perchance, using some form of house rule that you haven't mentioned?

I have argued clearly that I just use the 2nd Edition rules. I do not understand how you think it would not be so ???

I have explained with examples of Leia, AT-AT, etc. what I am about.

It would be helpful to go into that and not throw argumentative grenades at all times and talk about things that are not part of my argument.

If we assume that a Venator is properly run militarily and has 400 Starfighters on board, why should not 100 of the 400 be bombers?

Quote:

I'm not saying anything but an ISD that is 100% operational against a Venator, also at 100% capacity, has no chance even though, according to the background, it should not

My point from the beginning has been that there are all kinds of reasons why - if a Venator were still operational in the OT era - it might not be carrying a full load of starfighters in the first place. Assuming the Venator has 400 starfighters onboard is just that: an assumption. An assumption that goes against the strategic and operational situation as it attains as of the Battle of Yavin.

So yes, tactically speaking, a Venator packed full of first-rate starfighters would be a formidable threat one-on-one against an ISD (assuming the WEG ISD stats are accurate, which is a whole other issue). However, operationally and strategically, there are major difficulties involved in getting sufficient front-line starfighters concentrated to provide a Venator with a full fighter group.

Quote:

You see, that's exactly what I'm about. If the Venator is better why not give it the better Starfighter?

Because 1) the Empire has shifted doctrinally to a greater emphasis on capital ships, for a variety of reasons, and 2) the Alliance is engaged in a guerilla war where their assets are best used strategically by keeping them dispersed around the galaxy (able to hit many points at once) rather than being concentrated onto a single ship.

Your mindset is, essentially, I think the Venator is better, therefore the Empire and Alliance are idiots for not agreeing with me and using carriers to their maximum capacity. My mindset is, yes, a carrier is very formidable, yet the balance of evidence indicates that tactical and strategic doctrine in the SWU has shifted away from carriers to dreadnoughts. As such, an accurate stat write-up would include reasons why the Venator is no longer a front-line warship.

Quote:

I do not have to. Since the ISD has no more Starfighter Defense, these were erased by the starfighters of the Venator.

Even assuming this is the case, the ISD still has its turbolasers and ion cannon, which can be used en masse to overcome scale modifiers, and thus still serve a limited anti-starfighter role.

And again, as I mentioned above, WEG's ISD stats aren't perfect, or canon. WOTC, for example, gave its ISDs point defense laser batteries, which changes the equation a bit.

Quote:

4 squadrons are enough to get the job done. Each Squadron comes from one side -> 1D Shields on 3 Fire Arcs and on the last page 0D Shields.

If they are "only" equipped with Proton Torpedoes, the base damage is 9D. If they make a co-ordinated attack at 8, the damage is 11D + 2.

3 times 11D + 2 versus 14D and once 11D + 2 versus 13D

Statistically, they do at least one damage that goes beyond the resistance roll.

And that goes every round like that

I think your conclusions are biased in favor of your desired conclusion.

For starters, you are assuming a successful Command roll by the squadron commander, in addition to his other piloting duties, such as firing his own torpedoes and piloting his own starfighter through a mass of (relatively inaccurate) turbolaser fire from the ISD while he attacks. The squadron can still coordinate the fire of its proton torpedoes on a failed roll, but will receive a penalty to the coordination bonus based on how badly the commander failed.

Secondly, your calculations are off. Assuming a successful Command roll, the bonus for 12 starfighters (the standard for the SWU) would be +4D (+1D for every 3 units coordinating). It's also likely that the starfighters would be firing paired torpedoes, so the base damage would be 9D+1, for a total of 13D+1.

Third, the combined Damage roll must beat the ISD's Hull+Shields roll by at least 9 to inflict lasting damage (Heavy Damage; per the rules, a ships can take an effectively unlimited amount of Light Damage without being destroyed, although there is a loophole on the Engines and Maneuverability Damage). You are assuming that at least one roll per round will be high enough to do damage, even though the ISD will have a (slightly) higher dice value in three of four attacks. That is far from a statistical certainty, and the dice gods are venal and capricious.

Fourth, you're oversimplifying the starfighter attacks. A starfighter squadron isn't going to be sitting stationary relative to an ISD; they will be making attack runs, then circling back around to attack again (which will take several rounds per the Movement rules, unless the squadron tries a high-Difficulty maneuver to bring themselves back around more quickly). In addition, starfighter proton torpedo launchers have a very limited ammo supply. A squadron firing paired proton torpedoes will get in 3-4 attacks, and then be forced to return to its mother ship to reload.

Finally, you seem to be presuming the ISD will be sitting and taking the fire. Based on the stats you posted for your Venator, I note that the ISD has superior sensor ranges, which means the ISD will detect the Venator several rounds before the Venator can detect the ISD. A smart ISD captain would increase his speed to Full or All-Out on a vector chosen to make it difficult for the Venator to avoid, and close to guns range as quickly as possible, at which point the Venator is at a disadvantage due to its lower number of heavy guns and lower durability.

Quote:

I have argued clearly that I just use the 2nd Edition rules. I do not understand how you think it would not be so ???

I have explained with examples of Leia, AT-AT, etc. what I am about.

It would be helpful to go into that and not throw argumentative grenades at all times and talk about things that are not part of my argument.

In the case of this discussion, I note that your coordination value calculations were off, and do not match either the 2E or 2R&E rules.

Here you cited a length for the Super Star Destroyer that matches no official length I have seen.

In all three instances, you seem to be citing a rule that does not appear in official material. We can't have a discussion about the rules if we base our statements on different rules._________________"No set of rules can cover every situation. It's expected that you will make up new rules to suit the needs of your game." - The Star Wars Roleplaying Game, 2R&E, pg. 69, WEG, 1996.

y point from the beginning has been that there are all kinds of reasons why - if a Venator were still operational in the OT era - it might not be carrying a full load of starfighters in the first place. Assuming the Venator has 400 starfighters onboard is just that: an assumption. An assumption that goes against the strategic and operational situation as it attains as of the Battle of Yavin.

I always go from what is officially. Whether you are handling this in your own universe or not is on another page

Quote:

So yes, tactically speaking, a Venator packed full of first-rate starfighters would be a formidable threat one-on-one against an ISD (assuming the WEG ISD stats are accurate, which is a whole other issue). .

Thank you for admitting that I was right

Quote:

our mindset is, essentially, I think the Venator is better, therefore the Empire and Alliance are idiots for not agreeing with me and using carriers to their maximum capacity. My mindset is, yes, a carrier is very formidable, yet the balance of evidence indicates that tactical and strategic doctrine in the SWU has shifted away from carriers to dreadnoughts. As such, an accurate stat write-up would include reasons why the Venator is no longer a front-line warship.

My God, you are narrow-minded. I am not concerned that there has been a departure from carriers, but simply the fact that it is simply meaningless to make that departure from the official values.

Here I come to my standard statement that the rules of the RPG do not represent the background and that is simply bad design

Quote:

Even assuming this is the case, the ISD still has its turbolasers and ion cannon, which can be used en masse to overcome scale modifiers, and thus still serve a limited anti-starfighter role.

And again, as I mentioned above, WEG's ISD stats aren't perfect, or canon. WOTC, for example, gave its ISDs point defense laser batteries, which changes the equation a bit.

And I discuss WEG rules here and not WOTC

Quote:

think your conclusions are biased in favor of your desired conclusion

I think so synonymous of your;)

Quote:

For starters, you are assuming a successful Command roll by the squadron commander, in addition to his other piloting duties, such as firing his own torpedoes and piloting his own starfighter through a mass of (relatively inaccurate) turbolaser fire from the ISD while he attacks. The squadron can still coordinate the fire of its proton torpedoes on a failed roll, but will receive a penalty to the coordination bonus based on how badly the commander failed.

Of course I accept something positive everywhere but of course I can also calculate probabilities etc. but that would lead too far

Quote:

Secondly, your calculations are off. Assuming a successful Command roll, the bonus for 12 starfighters (the standard for the SWU) would be +4D (+1D for every 3 units coordinating). It's also likely that the starfighters would be firing paired torpedoes, so the base damage would be 9D+1, for a total of 13D+1.

Who can read is clearly in the advantage.

I wrote of 8 starfighters of 12 who can successfully coordinate because the damage is already as I described it

But ok if the whole squadron hits it should be right then the damage is just higher.

Quote:

Third, the combined Damage roll must beat the ISD's Hull+Shields roll by at least 9 to inflict lasting damage (Heavy Damage; per the rules, a ships can take an effectively unlimited amount of Light Damage without being destroyed, although there is a loophole on the Engines and Maneuverability Damage). You are assuming that at least one roll per round will be high enough to do damage, even though the ISD will have a (slightly) higher dice value in three of four attacks. That is far from a statistical certainty, and the dice gods are venal and capricious.

For real? That was not clear to me?

The point is that 4 squadrons, when attacking with single-fire (note the 13D + 1 damage), get 24 attacks on 6-torpedo magazines. This is statistically relevant because you have a slip-up (Wild DIE not counting) up here. Unfortunately, I can not attach an Excel here because then I could just show you;)

Quote:

Fourth, you're oversimplifying the starfighter attacks. A starfighter squadron isn't going to be sitting stationary relative to an ISD; they will be making attack runs, then circling back around to attack again (which will take several rounds per the Movement rules, unless the squadron tries a high-Difficulty maneuver to bring themselves back around more quickly). In addition, starfighter proton torpedo launchers have a very limited ammo supply. A squadron firing paired proton torpedoes will get in 3-4 attacks, and then be forced to return to its mother ship to reload.

In reality, yes, but here we have only 2 dimensions and not 3 dimensions as in reality, so the comparison is pretty useless and the rules do not give it that way either

Quote:

Finally, you seem to be presuming the ISD will be sitting and taking the fire. Based on the stats you posted for your Venator, I note that the ISD has superior sensor ranges, which means the ISD will detect the Venator several rounds before the Venator can detect the ISD. A smart ISD captain would increase his speed to Full or All-Out on a vector chosen to make it difficult for the Venator to avoid, and close to guns range as quickly as possible, at which point the Venator is at a disadvantage due to its lower number of heavy guns and lower durability.

I have not said that anywhere. That's just your interpretation

And a carrier has classified Starfighter as guards who see the ISD far ahead;)

Quote:

In the case of this discussion, I note that your coordination value calculations were off, and do not match either the 2E or 2R&E rules.

I proved you wrong

Quote:

Here you cited a length for the Super Star Destroyer that matches no official length I have seen.

What a length has to do with rules also only you know since the impact on a fight completely does not matter

whether 8.5km, 12.5km or 19km has no effect on the official Hull 10D and Shields 8D values

This is just another of your smoke grenades for the purpose of distracting from the topic

Quote:

Here again you miscalculate the coordination bonus.

In all three instances, you seem to be citing a rule that does not appear in official material. We can't have a discussion about the rules if we base our statements on different rules.

sweet!

you seriously keep me from a year ago where I'm sitting up with a misunderstanding?

All in all, we are clearly talking about 2nd Edition rules and nothing else.

You have not brought a single argument to the rule side yet, but you are escaping into Strategic and Fluff text excuses and you are not looking at the other examples of me that clearly show that rules and background do not form a unity with each other

My point is that you have shown a pattern of quoting rules that are either misunderstood or completely different from what is officially published. Asking for clarification so as to insure we are on the same page is a natural response.

And since your tone has gone well past polite disagreement into arrogant condescension, I expect I'll be ignoring you from here on out._________________"No set of rules can cover every situation. It's expected that you will make up new rules to suit the needs of your game." - The Star Wars Roleplaying Game, 2R&E, pg. 69, WEG, 1996.

In all fairness, if we compare "clone wars" era weaponry and ships with the 20+ years later "battle of Yavin" era we can just as easily compare earth navies in the same way.

Lets take a modern frigate, lets for the sake of things give it a VSTOL aircraft, some have helicopters, but swapping that with a VSTOL is no biggie.

So if we took all the carriers of all the navies in the world, and put them togheter against ONE modern frigate.......the frigate wins.

To compare, a vietnam era fighter have targeting systems and weapons tht is obsolete, they deal "normal" damage but at a low effect due to armor technology.

Targeting and sensors are superior on a modern frigate compared to a vietnam era vessel, they had less total computer power world wide than a single lap top of today and they put men on the moon.

The issue is obsolete technology vs modern technolgy and modern tech will always win.

However, if we took a clone wars venator, stripped and gutted it, and replaced all the old systems, weapons, and armor with new tech as well as outfitting the venator with up to date TIEs.

Then it would match better a modern star destroyer, however given the destroyer still will have more than 5 times the number of weapons, and still have good close defenses against fighters then odds are the fight will still be even.

I will also go so far as to argue that the main "mistake" in the books is that older technology does not have a "era scale" it makes zero sense that a 20 year old system is at par with something new.

An old hyperdrive was even with the fastest ones, far slower than even "slow" modern hyperdrives.

Apply this to weapons and I would argue a modern turbolaser will effectively deal more damage against old and osolete armor, and wise versa, an old cannon would be less effective.

I would house rule something in the lines of adding XD to Hull rols, even shields, and to damage rolls to reflect the differenc in weapons.

Afterall One f-15 during ww2 would have taken out ALL other planes, and would never have been hit as it would fly faster than the attackers bullets.

So it is about era vs era.

A clone wars venator can never ever win against even a "yavin era" raider corvette, let alone a cruiser or a destroyer.

So the only way to compare, is to change the venator and make it up to date, and in that case it will still struggle and not easily win, if it will win at all more than it will loose over lets say 100 fights.

It is like comparing a ww2 battleship with ww2 systems with a modern battleship with modern systems, the latter will shoot the first out of the water while the first is still at port even.

So the ships can not be compared due mostly to the huge gap in technology.

However a ISD carrier, with x3 or x4 normal compliment, and little or no sactifice to weapon systems, vs a "normal" ISD would be what you are arguing, but that is not a venator

In the discussion of era vs. era, I seem to recall someone putting out an adjustment chart based on which era the technology came out in. But, I could see a +x modifier per difference in era.

So a Rebellion era ISD vs. a Clone Wars Era Venator would get a bonus to attack rolls, damage rolls, and soak rolls. But, one could update systems on an older vessel to current specs to eliminate those bonuses._________________RR
________________________________________________________________

I game pretty exclusively in the Rebels / Classic era, so my stats are tailored to fit that time period. That's why I made my version of the Venator a more fragile version of the Victory, with greater carrying capacity, then included fluff as to why neither the Empire or the Alliance used Venators to their full carrier potential._________________"No set of rules can cover every situation. It's expected that you will make up new rules to suit the needs of your game." - The Star Wars Roleplaying Game, 2R&E, pg. 69, WEG, 1996.

My point is that you have shown a pattern of quoting rules that are either misunderstood or completely different from what is officially published. Asking for clarification so as to insure we are on the same page is a natural response.

And since your tone has gone well past polite disagreement into arrogant condescension, I expect I'll be ignoring you from here on out.

do not be a mimosa

You'll endure a bit of sarcasm. I could also blame you for being arrogant because you took it for granted that I use the wrong rules. Did I complain? No, do not be offended and endure it like an adult person

You have probably realized that I am right with my arguments. If that had not been the case, you would have gone into the main points and thrown no fog grenades at the topic for the purpose of distraction

Your sudden indignation regarding my choice of words also fits into this scheme.

Alone as I have debunked your targets in my last post and you do not want to respond to the obvious mistakes on your part and instead hiding behind an offended facade speaks for itself

As I said, I do not hold a grudge against you and consider it quite when I get headwind but I make it no drama

Last edited by denderan marajain on Thu May 24, 2018 4:48 am; edited 2 times in total

In all fairness, if we compare "clone wars" era weaponry and ships with the 20+ years later "battle of Yavin" era we can just as easily compare earth navies in the same way.

Lets take a modern frigate, lets for the sake of things give it a VSTOL aircraft, some have helicopters, but swapping that with a VSTOL is no biggie.

So if we took all the carriers of all the navies in the world, and put them togheter against ONE modern frigate.......the frigate wins.

To compare, a vietnam era fighter have targeting systems and weapons tht is obsolete, they deal "normal" damage but at a low effect due to armor technology.

Targeting and sensors are superior on a modern frigate compared to a vietnam era vessel, they had less total computer power world wide than a single lap top of today and they put men on the moon.

The issue is obsolete technology vs modern technolgy and modern tech will always win.

However, if we took a clone wars venator, stripped and gutted it, and replaced all the old systems, weapons, and armor with new tech as well as outfitting the venator with up to date TIEs.

Then it would match better a modern star destroyer, however given the destroyer still will have more than 5 times the number of weapons, and still have good close defenses against fighters then odds are the fight will still be even.

I will also go so far as to argue that the main "mistake" in the books is that older technology does not have a "era scale" it makes zero sense that a 20 year old system is at par with something new.

An old hyperdrive was even with the fastest ones, far slower than even "slow" modern hyperdrives.

Apply this to weapons and I would argue a modern turbolaser will effectively deal more damage against old and osolete armor, and wise versa, an old cannon would be less effective.

I would house rule something in the lines of adding XD to Hull rols, even shields, and to damage rolls to reflect the differenc in weapons.

Afterall One f-15 during ww2 would have taken out ALL other planes, and would never have been hit as it would fly faster than the attackers bullets.

So it is about era vs era.

A clone wars venator can never ever win against even a "yavin era" raider corvette, let alone a cruiser or a destroyer.

So the only way to compare, is to change the venator and make it up to date, and in that case it will still struggle and not easily win, if it will win at all more than it will loose over lets say 100 fights.

It is like comparing a ww2 battleship with ww2 systems with a modern battleship with modern systems, the latter will shoot the first out of the water while the first is still at port even.

So the ships can not be compared due mostly to the huge gap in technology.

However a ISD carrier, with x3 or x4 normal compliment, and little or no sactifice to weapon systems, vs a "normal" ISD would be what you are arguing, but that is not a venator

The only problem is that the values ​​just do not reflect it.

There are also no rules that say if it comes from the era XYZ add or subtract ABC points to the Hull value

I am not saying that you are wrong in your opinion but the subject of the debate is Vanilla rules